SC: A New York City ordinance of 1897

[FA]

Ron,

I just went through recording of March 1, 2012 study hall. In that study hall you explained following:


xxxxxxxxxxx, modifier, xxxxxxxxxxx: OK

xxxxxxxxxxx modifier xxxxxxxxxxx: OK

xxxxxxxxxxx, modifier xxxxxxxxxxx: NOT OK

xxxxxxxxxxx modifier, xxxxxxxxxxx: NOT OK

You had commented "You can't have a comma on only one side of a modifier (unless it begins or ends the sentence).

Could you kindly help me understand my question from "Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 8:24 am" in light of the information from the study hall?

Regards
Farukh

[RonPurewal]

we're not dealing with a modifier that has a comma on only one side, so that excerpt is irrelevant.

[NarenS469]

Hi Instructors,

I have a doubt on the structure of choice C & E, can you tell me if the below understanding is correct?

A New York City.....<verb-ing>....., required cyclists....

Is the verb-ing modifying --> ',required cyclists.....' ?

Thanks,

Naren

[RonPurewal]

no, it modifies the ordinance.

[MaggieW980]

not parallel.
you can't have just "mandated" in parallel to "IT granted".

"required of X to do Y" is also unidiomatic.

Hi，ron！

sorry to bother you.
I am confused about the statement that you can't have just "mandated" in parallel to "IT granted".
Because I think ’‘it granted’‘ can parallel to this part of the sentence：’‘A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulated ...’‘, and it can perfectly refer to ‘A New York City ordinance of 1897'

[RonPurewal]

Because I think ’‘it granted’‘ can parallel to this part of the sentence：’‘A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulated ...’‘, and it can perfectly refer to ‘A New York City ordinance of 1897'

two things about this:


1/
if you read those two things as parallel, then "mandated" and "required" aren't parallel to anything at all.


2/
MORE IMPORTANTLY—
if you even CONSIDER the possibility that those two things might be parallel, then you have failed at the first step of sentence correction, which is to establish the intended meaning of the sentence.

in your initial reading, you NEED to figure out that:
• "regulated..." is a general statement about what the ordinance did,
• "mandated...", "required...", and "granted..." are specific ways IN WHICH the ordinance "regulated" bicycles.

in other words—
if you were going to make an "outline" of this information, for a powerpoint slide or something, it would be something like
1. regulated bicycles
——a. mandated xxx
——b. required xxx
——c. granted xxx

if you didn't figure this out BEFORE LOOKING AT THE ANSWER CHOICES, then you failed at step #1.

[MaggieW980]

Because I think ’‘it granted’‘ can parallel to this part of the sentence：’‘A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulated ...’‘, and it can perfectly refer to ‘A New York City ordinance of 1897'

two things about this:


1/
if you read those two things as parallel, then "mandated" and "required" aren't parallel to anything at all.


2/
MORE IMPORTANTLY—
if you even CONSIDER the possibility that those two things might be parallel, then you have failed at the first step of sentence correction, which is to establish the intended meaning of the sentence.

in your initial reading, you NEED to figure out that:
• "regulated..." is a general statement about what the ordinance did,
• "mandated...", "required...", and "granted..." are specific ways IN WHICH the ordinance "regulated" bicycles.

in other words—
if you were going to make an "outline" of this information, for a powerpoint slide or something, it would be something like
1. regulated bicycles
——a. mandated xxx
——b. required xxx
——c. granted xxx

if you didn't figure this out BEFORE LOOKING AT THE ANSWER CHOICES, then you failed at step #1.

Hi Ron，
Thank you for your reply. I understand what you have said above, but I am still a little confused.
The pedestrians can be granted by the regulation of the bicycles?
How can the ‘’ ——c. granted xxx‘’ be parallel to ''——a. mandated xxx and——b. required xxx'' ?

[RonPurewal]

in this context, it's clear that pedestrians are being given the right-of-way against bicycles.
just think about it for a second -- that rule has absolutely nothing to do with what pedestrians should or shouldn't do. it's a rule about what BICYCLISTS need to do (= specifically, to YIELD the right-of-way to people on foot).

in the same way, "Pedestrians have right-of-way" is part of today's VEHICLE code (for cars and trucks)... because, again, it's a rule for DRIVERS to obey.

[MaggieW980]

Very clear explanation.

Thank you so much, Ron!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[SaiR240]

Hi there,

I learnt that modifiers are optional and can be omitted in a sentence by which the sentence still makes sence. In this statement

"A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulating the use of bicycles, mandated a maximum speed of eight miles an hour, required of cyclists to keep feet on pedals and hands on handlebars at all times, and granted pedestrians right-of-way."

If I remove the entire modifier, I see A New York City ordinance of 1897, which is a sentence fragment.

Is there any wrong with what my thoughts are

Thanks for checking.

Regards,
Ramani.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I learnt that modifiers are optional and can be omitted in a sentence by which the sentence still makes sense

That's almost right. Leaving out the 'extra information' or 'middlemen' (modifiers) is a great way to check if a subject and verb match up. However, the extra information is information and adds something to the sentence. So we'll often end up with a sentence that is grammatically okay, but doesn't make a lot of sense. For example, this is a correct sentence: 'Stacey, along with her friends, often goes to the beach on the weekend.' If I leave out all the modifiers, then I just get 'Stacey goes'. This doesn't make a lot of sense, but it passes the test of correct subject-verb agreement.

Now, we have to be careful what is extra information (a modifier) and what is part of the core subject-verb relationship of the sentence. That's where you're going wrong in your analysis. Let me try to list the many modifiers here:

"A New York City ordinance of 1897 regulating the use of bicycles, mandated a maximum speed of eight miles an hour, required of cyclists to keep feet on pedals and hands on handlebars at all times, and granted pedestrians right-of-way."

'New York City' describes the ordinance
'of 1897' gives information about the ordinance
'regulating the use' information about the use
'of bicycles' more information about the ordinance
'a maximum speed of eight miles an hour' information about what was mandated
'of cyclists to keep feet on pedals and hands on handlebars' information about what was required
'at all times' information about keeping feet on pedals and hands on handlebars
'pedestrians right-of-way' information about what was granted (the object of the verb)

Therefore the core of the sentence is 'A[n] ordinance mandated, required, and granted.' Here we've got a subject and a list of three verbs. Again, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it's okay grammatically.

The key question is: 'what is a modifier and what is part of the core?'. For this you need to recognize the various modifiers: prepositional, -ing, which, that, etc. You also need to see that 'mandated' is a verb in this context and can't be left out.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - i dont see how granted____. should be parallel to mandated _____ and required ____

Instead i think granted____. should be parallel to regulated____

Granted pedestrians right-of-way seems to be generic (not referring to pedestrians right of way from bicyclists specifically)

If the author's intent was to say right of way against bicyclists -- the third marker would have been Granted pedestrians right-of-way from bycyclists

Seems like Granted pedestrians right-of-way is generic and refers to right of way in general (Against all vehicles - cars / bikes / trucks...)

Thoughts ?

[TiffanyB]

Hello JbhB682,

If you look at the answer choices, the first difference among all of the answer choices is either regulated or regulating.

What is the difference?

If the sentence uses regulated, it sets up a parallel list with regulated, mandated, required, and granted all being items in that list.

If the sentence uses regulating, "regulating the use of bicycles" becomes a modifier of "ordinance of 1897," offering more information about the purpose of that ordinance.

So which is correct?

When creating a list, all of the list items should be equal in weight/importance. In this case, if we make regulated the use of bicycles equal to all of the other items, then we don't know what was given a mandatory speed of eight miles per hour in the next list item.

The structure the "ordinance of 1897 regulating the use of bicycles" then sets up the following list (mandated, required, and granted) as describing the regulations that were placed on bicyclists by the ordinance of 1897.